I went Krav Maga as this is a real combat art used by the military. It does have elements of JuJutsu. Skill is important. VERY important. Raw Strength will not work by itself. So your comment is correct.

Thanks for the information and book recommendation.

i believe this is just Newton III Law- if you give a force to your opponent, your opponent gives an equal and opposite fore to you. It is physically impossible to avoid this.

Tyler Pulkkinen yes that’s perfectly said, foot work is very important too. Float like a butterfly sting like a bee. This whole concept comes from training fast twitch tendons to punch from there to here, not to the middle or through the target. In a fight situation it never goes the way of the combo’s you learn. It needs to be broken down further into single movements stacked in any order as your target moves. Not putting fencing down, there is great skill in this sport. Although getting back to a real life situation in modern times not many people would have a foil to use. There are literally 1000’s of people with Katanas, or Viking swords in their homes. I know because I make a lot for customers. Power of the strike is only there once you ground your feet and brute force is literally useless. If brute force was a factor then a steroid freak would be unstoppable. Once again my comments are my opinion and are not to be construed as trying to offend anybody, style or type of sword they prefer to use. As a blade smith I’ve made a lot of Viking swords, and they are very cumbersome.

I think force felt with a closed fist punch would be different then a finely honed sword is what I took away from that.

They use imperial measurements?

@@sailonstellarwinds no, but the early translators of the Tao Te Ching did.

I completely agree. However, admittedly, I feel more comfortable fighting a skilled opponent than an unskilled one, who may do something stupid like a suicidal leap. I find it always takes utmost discipline and humility to prevail. Always.

@@swordandshield In my experience in fighting those with less skill I found that keeping things simple is usually the best course of action. Like you explained in the video, wait for the right moment to go but not before.

The problem that most don't seem to understand is the risk that's involved when fighting with sharp blades, with or without protection. The people who say such things like "rushing in with heavy blows and over powering your opponent are the key to winning a sword fight" are the ones who have only fought with padding and blunt swords. It is frustrating to watch these people duel as there is no element of risk considered, double hits are more or less guaranteed and they look like they are trying to hit each other with a stick. These are the ones that say form is lost when in the heat of exchanging blows. I look at it like this..........both of you have sharp swords with the intent of killing or maiming the other while trying to stay alive. One misjudgement is enough for the opponents blade to end it, with only little enertia from the tip needed to cause some serious damage. The binding technique seems to offer some kind of momentary psychological safety net which allows one another to see and feel the others blade in front of them. You must then be able to demonstrate a high level of composure and technique to make your next move or to counter react one......... to do all this you must need good techneque, be self assured, crazy and or have big balls.

@@gregerious6549 Agree with this. Is the reason I only watch Roland's videos when it comes to HEMA. Everything else just feels to much of swing and see what happens.

Thank you very much.

You are most welcome to do so.

Protective training gear has no impact on neither combat geometry, nor anatomy, nor pressure. So what do you expect would be altered? As for historical armour: Of course it was worn to offer protection. Yet it does not render anybody invulnerable, or is a substitute for skill and ability. So a fight would potentially last longer, yet the principles remain the same. It was only in the course of the 14th century that a clear distinction between armoured and unarmoured combat technique was drawn, due to the availability and constant improvement of armour. And even then, underlying martial arts principles remained the same.

@@swordandshield I expect that a beginner in full gear would actually run at you with more speed, strength, and weight the same way football players hit harder than rugby players, and that you would have to respond with the same and the result would put to rest the debate once and for all. Again, the reason there are martial arts is because without them, the stronger person always wins, so on a battlefield with two highly skilled opponents, the bigger stronger guy always wins? Do the biggest strongest guys dominate the tournaments? Also we want to just see you get tackled and finally use some grappling techniques to prove that even in that skill beats strength!

@@swordandshield Well, we know very well, that armour effects the dynamics of a fight. I highly doubt that this is only true for plate armour. And it gives you an advantage and therefore can be a substitute for skill or ability.

@@swordandshield We hope that full protective gear and possibly synthetic swords will alter the behaviour of the aggressor. We are simply afraid to see situation like in those "mma fighter destroys aikido master" videos. Just because he is faster, hits harder and doesn't pull punches. You challenged someone to try, please film it!

@@Kubold "Just because he is faster, hits harder and doesn't pull punches" don't forget "actually knows how to fight well"

A great story. And just so my audience understands the context: Boucicaut was by no means weak. His workout is quite famous. It involves a set of armour, a wall and a ladder!

Dankesehr - und, ja, ich teile Euern Schmerz!

In formation fighting, I would expect the one unit that better manages to act like a uniform organism in regards to pressure and measure to prevail. Flat shields are actually not purpose-made for formation fighting. They work much better in single combat. Yet how they were implemented to offer optimal protection in group fighting, where there are pole weapons, too, is something that I have thought about a lot, and I intend to run according experiments in the future. What I see on TV and have experienced in re-enactment does not feel convincing, unfortunately.

That is correct.

Ist das jetzt eine Herausforderung?

Dunio von Benum 😂

Heh.

@@Ranziel1 na ob der Schwertschwinger Roland herausfordern mőchte und sich dabei filmen lāsst...

Think, no. I can't imagine with this techniques he could beat someone who hold a sword not first time in life. No way. Most HEMA practitioners or sport fencers, or another full contact sword fighters with fence basics would outclass this techniques. There has to be full contact sparrings to make techniques work. When it is always in slow and soft motion - this is only theory.

It's never all skill or all strength (see weight classes) but skill very quickly takes advantage of unskilled aggression in both wrestling and other grappling arts.

@@tragicslip well it's never all anything but a very good balance of a lot of things. I loved wrestling. Was pretty good at it too. Just hope my sword play will get to the level, and past it, I was with wrestling.

@@douglassherrod1248 cheers. i just remember getting thrown on my as by the wrestling coach of my school as i was the biggest kid in the room and he wanted to make a lasting impression.

@@tragicslip lol. Not good. But it happens. Hope you learned from it. When I left school I had the best record in the history of the school and stayed at the top spot for 20 years afterwards. I enjoyed doin it.

Can I ask what you are basing your point on?

@@dudeofvalor9294It's simple logic, but I do have experience with the extreme situation described. There used to be a guy in our club who was a foot taller than anyone else, very muscular and broad shouldered and very comfortable swinging a 2m greatsword like it was a toothpick. We were a casual group, who allowed mixed arms combat (as long as it was a "sword") so he always used his great big weapon. Some of us were big enough and quick enough to skillfully outmatch him (though it was always a bit terrifying for all of us), but his smaller opponents could do nothing, even if they could easily beat the "middle sized" fighters. As soon as they were in range, SMACK! They didn't have the strength to manipulate his attacks in any way. To be fair, if they'd been allowed spears or crossbows, it could have been a different story, but the point remains that there can be situations in hand to hand combat where, however great your skill with a sword, it isn't worth a damn.

@@Meevious LOL

Well, all i could tell you, I said in the video. However, I can certainly rule out the accidently-dropping-the-shield-on-a-stone scenario.

Yeah i was about to say the same, he is clearly just walking forwards pressing his shield onto the other dudes shield. What i want to see is if someone actually swung the sword fast and hard all over the place while using their shield to static block or something

@@lostmarimo Or shield bash heavily the other shield or the guy.

@@lostmarimo i think its because he wants to create an opening, to expose the weak part. Rushing on someone with shield just by swinging the sword brutally sometimes will cause the sword get traped on the shield and that is a bad position (i think) or it will just blunting your sword (i think). Im not an expert, but i think it is rather difficult to strike someone on shield guard. If they fighting without shield, may be it will be different story. Sorry for bad english

@@asadmuhammad4806 Yeah the guy on the left or the old guy who is skilled does that ofc. But the guy who represents the "noob" should just keep swinging his sword will rushing the other guy and flailing with his shield to try and static block. Other wise we can't see that it works. if the "noob" just casually walks forward with his shield high, then that tells us nothing. Just like an Aikido demonstration where the attacker just follows the moves of the "master"

@@lostmarimo do you mean that the video does not represent how the noob will probably fight? I mean yeah, the noob will probably just swinging the sword brutally. I think the video does not really represent how the noob will probably fight. I think roland should make a video how to deal with noob attackers. Or make a video that using sword like a club is not going to work. Maybe

Very good question. In formation fighting, I would expect the one unit that better manages to act like a uniform organism in regards to pressure and measure to prevail. Flat shields are actually not purpose-made for formation fighting. They work much better in single combat. Yet how they were implemented to offer optimal protection in group fighting, where there are pole weapons, too, is something that I have thought about a lot, and I intend to run according experiments in the future. What I see on TV and have experienced in re-enactment does not feel convincing, unfortunately.

By looking at historical records, the viking armies were pretty fragile when it came to more than just skirmishes: Vikings are handily defeated when confronted by most armies - that might have to do with their shields and fighting styles? We can draw no sure conclusions about that, I guess. As a dueling combo, though, the viking weapons shine. It is so interesting!

Thank you for your kind words. Yes, by all means, feel free to quote and use my ideas as you see fit. Good luck with your book.

There is no indication that there was a clear division between armoured and unarmoured technique prior to the late 14th century when plate armour has become widespread. Of course one would know the strengths and weaknesses of armour in earlier contexts, too, and exploit them accordingly.

Matej Petelin kzfaq.info/get/bejne/r5hjatCFxsvcoqc.html ?

Great analogy.

@@bobcassidy3285 I've seen that, effin horrible. 2 deaths, they say.

@@swordandshield Thank you :)

Who can speak with great mastery of language when someone is shouting in the room ??

In half-swording, it is just the same. Only a different expression of principles, as the context is different. As for the spare shields mentioned in sagas: That is for highly ritualized judicial duels only.

interesting.

All of that makes sense. Particularly the last point. The benefit of trained skill is you know what to do next. You can always tell when someone who has experience or training goes up against someone who doesn't, because when they close, the person with training knows what happens next, the person who doesn't just starts repeating the same motion, because that's as far into the fight as their brain has thought. That said, sometimes that one thing they keep doing is the right thing, and the skilled person either can't react fast enough, or doesn't have the experience to know how to deal with it.

@@Lurklen I agree that is were rule 5 comes into play. Knowing when to fight and when to cut and run is have the fight right there. Sometimes I think people are not being taught these six rules. I learned them on my own. Once I did learn them I started winning more than losing. Still lost some fights sometimes though. You never win them all.

@@timesthree5757 "You never win them all." An important lesson. I find a lot of young people, and people old enough to know better, forget that though they're the heroes of their story, there's a world of stories out there. Some one's gotta lose, if you can't imagine that being you, stay outta the fight. Also, I think those lessons, some people don't survive the teaching. For every person like you who picked those up, there's a bucket load of folks who did not get the message, and suffered as a result. On the other hand, if you make it to adulthood, and you didn't have to learn that stuff at all, you're pretty lucky.

@@Lurklen That is why I think the US Military, HEMA, Asian fight instructors would do well to teach those lessons.

Okay. It's "their" not "there", friend. There is an adverb, a place. Their is possesive pronoun.

@@enlightenedterrestrial Come on friend, not fair to criticise use of English if that is not their first language. I know plenty of Brits with worse - more to the point on a video about swordplay, does this person have a point?

​@@MeAbroad2004 Look, I'm not doing this to be an asshole and put out my anger. I simply saw that the person did the same mistake 5 times. I think it's fair to point out such errors in a polite way.

@@enlightenedterrestrial One could argue that rushing in to correct this grammar was done with little social skill and finesse, so in that regard, it does relate to the video ;)

Very good question. Very different context. In formation fighting, I would expect the one unit that better manages to act like a uniform organism in regards to pressure and measure to prevail. Flat shields are actually not purpose-made for formation fighting. They work much better in single combat. Yet how they were implemented to offer optimal protection in group fighting, where there are pole weapons, too, is something that I have thought about a lot, and I intend to run according experiments in the future. What I see on TV and what I have experienced in re-enactment does not feel convincing, unfortunately.

I mean one handed by I'm missing my left hand so I can't hold a shield out like you can

@@joshuamyers155 there are systems for double strapped shields like rottella in Italy that should work well for you. The shield is just strapped to the arm and all shield movement is full arm in those systems, I’d look into that! Manciolino and marozzo are two authors that covered it

Aggressive is not necessarily suicidal.

In regards to impact power: You can try yourself with e.g. a knife on a piece of meat or wood etc. The whipping action creates more impact power than trying to press through the blade into the target. Take care!

Words. The fat man in a byrnie has to first get to where he wants to sit down. As for shields: I provide the results of my research publicly, so no need to speculate on construction.

To Michal Skokan, In case you would find it helpful, included is a response below. It more generally applies to pitched battles and larger groups, however some Viking warbands consisted of as few as 12-30 men, so it can apply to smaller numbers also. Until the advent of modern firearms in the mid-19th century, warfare from Ancient Greece up to the Napoleonic Wars was all about fighting in tight disciplined formations. Until the mass production of firearms that could accurately hit man-sized targets at several hundred meters made large dense formations suicidal, pitched battles were nearly always won by whichever side could maintain a coherent formation in the face of the enemy. The shape, depth, density, and troop composition varied throughout the ages, but the idea remained the same. Units of well-trained well-disciplined soldiers densely packed and fighting as one cohesive unit would always beat a group fighting as scattered individuals. Strategy was all about upsetting your opponents' ability to fight in formation, either by the choice of battlefield or causing them to lose heart and break formation, at which point, they were at an extreme disadvantage. Breaking the moral of your opponents often involved skirmishing, attrition, charges by heavy cavalry, attacking their formation in vulnerable areas, such as in the flanks or rear, capturing/killing the commander, taking the unit standard, _et cetera._ Scattered and broken groups of soldiers were occasionally rallied by their leaders or elite troops, prompting them to reform again into an organized mass and rejoin the battle. As far as pitched battles went, kills were occasions of opportunity and surprisingly low in number until one side lost its resolve and broke formation, at which point they were pursued by their victorious opponents as they routed the field, which is when most were either killed or taken prisoner. If you want more information about the battles during the Early Middle Ages, you should check out some of the Icelandic Sagas, such as "Egil's Saga", which tells of his life and includes several of his duels, raids, and the battles in which he fought and commanded soldiers. You would also likely enjoy the "Battle of Maldon", which is a fragment of a heroic poem about an Anglo-Saxon earl, Byrhtnoth, who opposed a force of Viking raiders at a river crossing. Without spoiling the ending, the outcome of this battle changed how the English dealt with the Viking raiders for a generation. Since it is a heroic poem, the author goes out of his way to record the heroics of individual combatants during the battle. One of the highlights is when the Earl, upon being impaled when a Viking threw his spear at him, removed it and threw it back, and killed the Viking with his own weapon. Check it out, it's the manliest thing I've ever read and well worth a read! You make also consider looking into the last stand of the Pontifical Swiss Guard during the sack of Rome in AD 1527. Elite bodyguards of the pope numbering only 189 held back 10,000 Protestant mercenaries intent on killing Pope Clement VII, by blocking the only corridor to reach him with themselves. Before being overwhelmed, they killed around 1,000 of their opponents and even managed to advance into them, pushing their much more numerous foes back. This had everything to do with disciplined formation fighting with halberds and wisely choosing to fight in a choke point. My last recommendation would be to look up the Spanish Tercio combined arms formations during the Early Modern Era, which are a fascinating read. I hope this was in some way helpful. All the best, Kyle of Canada

@@KyleOfCanada you are the best. Thank you very much.

"Units of well-trained well-disciplined soldiers densely packed and fighting as one cohesive unit would always beat a group fighting as scattered individuals. Strategy was all about upsetting your opponents' ability to fight in formation, either by the choice of battlefield or causing them to lose heart and break formation, at which point, they were at an extreme disadvantage." Yet that's exactly why civilized Europe had so much trouble with Germanic and Mongol tribes, the invaders didn't depend on standard formations and thus had no lack of resolve without it. *The strength of formations was also its weakness,* and was used to great effect across different battlefronts. It's why war evolved to be less rigid. Even into the 17th century you had Shaka making mockery of British tactics. Then there's the guerilla warfare of Vietnam etc. But getting off my tangent, Vikings were highly adaptable, taking what they needed to fight (e.g. horses) when they arrived, and they had no need of formations. Use of formations (e.g. shield walls) against them would have been pointless due to their adaptable nature. _Mobility and flexibility_ are what dominate in battle, and the best formations will be whittled away by a more mobile force. I'm speaking generally, and formations still have their place in warfare today, but they're only a part of the equation. My point is that formations are not indomitable, and without a secondary, mobile force (such as cavalry) they are vulnerable. Scattered individuals can win battles with the right tactics complimentary to the enemy.

@@mousermind _"Mobility_ and _flexibility_ are what dominate in battle, and the best formations will be whittled away by a more mobile force...that's exactly why civilized Europe had so much trouble with Germanic and Mongol tribes, the invaders didn't depend on standard formations and thus had no lack of resolve without it. *The strength of formations was also its weakness,* and was used to great effect across different battlefronts." I'm glad for your comment. I knew from the moment I wrote mine, that someone would come along to complement it by adding some of the factors left out in my own generalized overview. I'd agree that ancient warfare was an interplay between the ideas we presented: mobility, flexibility, formations, and unit cohesion (among others), all of which are factors that would impact the outcome of any given battle. No single factor would guarantee victory, but all must be considered and properly applied according to the situation. A good example of this would be to compare the Battle on the Horns of Hattin, _AD_ 1189, to the Battle of Asurf, _AD_ 1191. Generally speaking, in both cases, the Catholic Crusader armies relied on heavier infantry formations, well-armoured knights and unit discipline to outlast their opponents' constant skirmishing and to maintain the line of battle until their opponents fell into disarray, lost their resolve, and were routed. On the other hand, the Muslim Jihadist armies relied more on light cavalry and infantry to skirmish and disrupt their foes enough for their heavy lancers to deliver the _coup de grâce_ to their now disordered opponents. At Hattin, the Muslims were victorious due their commander, Saladin, skillfully outmaneuvering his opponents and imposing upon them the need to fight in unfavourable terrain (forcing them to traverse a barren desert to relieve a besieged garrison, despite being out numbered and without sufficient skirmishers of their own). In this battle, the heat, man-made drought (caused by being able to force the Crusaders along a certain route combined with poisoning the water supplies there), and constant skirmishing leading up to the battle broke the Crusaders' resolve, unit formations, and army cohesion by the time they finally made contact with the enemy lines. As a result, their army fell into scattered disarray, was surrounded and overwhelmed by the more flexible and mobile Muslims. In the latter battle, King Richard the Lionhearted's Crusader army was ambushed by Saladin's Jihadist one while on the march between two Crusader strongholds. Despite the constant molestation of Saladin's skirmishers and charges of opportunity by his heavy cavalry, the Crusaders successfully maintained their composure and square formation--even while on the march and despite heavy losses. Although the Muslims had greater flexibility and mobility, the Crusaders' disciplined formation won out this time. After the battle had raged for a considerable time, the Christian knights finally had enough of being harassed and sallied out from the centre of their square to counter-attack their foes, which caught them off-guard. They did so with such ferocity and temerity that they broke the Muslim resolve, fought all the way through to Saladin's personal troops (which were held in reserve) and nearly captured him, forcing him to flee the field, resulting in a mass route. Had the knights been ill-disciplined and done this earlier, when the Muslims were baiting them and prepared, or had their defensive formation been breached and faltered, they would have been destroyed. As these battles demonstrate, the interplay of all the factors mentioned (flexibility, mobility, disciplined formations, and unit cohesion) applied according to the proper terrain and opportunity will result in victory or defeat, rather than the constant primacy of one factor over the others. I didn't mean to imply the opposite while emphasizing the importance of formation fighting. All the best, Kyle of Canada PS -- It's nice to discuss such things. Now I feel like booting up Medieval 2: Total War and its delightful mods. [Edited to fix spacing.]

@@KyleOfCanada however, addressing the OP's question directily, that stuff frankly goes out the window in small groups. you cant stay tightly packed, you stay in line/ formation to a extent but small numbers means less ability to watch your back and sides. and more ability to circle round.

Which poem ist that?

wiktenauer.com/wiki/Poem_of_the_Pel

Thank you. In fact, i do pelle work, too. My friend Thrand practiced a particular striking technique that I showed him at Ásfólk at their pells for hours.

Maces, clubs, poleaxes, etc. became more popular because they provide a major advantage against something that swords have a tougher time giving (murder stroke aside): blunt force trauma. Blunt force trauma is much easier to use against armored opponents than a sword's cuts/thrusts. Half swording was a thing, but you could just as easily wrestle with a blunt weapon, axe, etc., pull the opponent to the ground, and stab the opponent with a dagger.

You want to get inside there ability to hit you. Essentially if there sword etc is behind you, then it's much harder for them to bring it back and get you before you get them. To do this you need to have a quick change in tempo, clear the opponents weapon (sword, axe, shield etc). Other options is making them miss and then stepping in, feinting to draw a reaction and then exploit it works as well. The worst thing you can do is try to match their strengths (height being the big one) .

@@dudeofvalor9294 Thank you. Appreciate the information. Now I understand that it would be like in boxing. Awesome.

@@antoninaheath3671 Definitely. When you have multiple sources/disciplines saying the same thing then I think there is a lot of merit in what they say/teach.

@@dudeofvalor9294 I should try this, I'm sure I won't have problems finding a right opponent as everybody is taller and stronger than me. :)

@@antoninaheath3671 My only other advice is to test out what you would do slowly. Get the technique right before going fast. Besides once technique is right, it will feel fast naturally.

Then pray you have the skill as do your buddies to beat the group in front and that the gods are on your side.

Then the guy with a spear behind you has to blunt the enemy's charge.

Weapons make up for strength disparity to some degree. It doesn't have to be binary (all strength or all skill). Being strong is an advantage and weight classes in martial arts are an acknowledgement of that fact. Notice though, the strongest guy in a weight class isn't always the champ.

Where did I even come close to saying it was binary? Also how do you know how strong a guy in any given weight class is? I would wager they're all relatively close on strength

@@bretlynn weight class is brought up only as it is an acknowledgement of the value of strength.

@@tragicslip but you said "notice the strongest guy in a weight class isn't always the champ" I'd like to know how you know that

@@bretlynn look at all the ufc weight classes. are all the champs the strongest in the class? do guys go up a weight class and win ever?

If you intend to attack the shield it is possible to hit the shield, but not square on, the shield is being held at an angle. If you use your example of trying to use an axe to bite into the shield in order to control it, you immediately find a problem. In order to apply a sufficient force at that angle, you need to make a wide attack, as opposed to a direct one (think haymaker vs straight), which generally means you are slower, and have less reach. So if we grant you targeting the shield, and swinging at an angle that would be flat onto the shield so that you bite as opposed to deflect, at that point you have already entered measure, and you have connected your killing implement with their fighting implement. They can strike you both as you enter into distance, and after you succeed in your task, they have a killing implement at the ready, and don't need to be worried about yours, and can strike you at their leisure. "Well why don't you then just hit them with the shield, charge over them", you might say. Well that's bridging more distance, taking more time, and providing more openings to your opponent, and also neglecting that they don't have to stand still and let you enter that range. It really is not that easy. Your second point, my understanding is most of our archaeological finds are from battlefields, as opposed to peoples personal collections. They're the equipment lost and not found, not the equipment kept. Of course they would replace or reforge or discard broken weapons, but that's not really salient.

@@Ashes42g The way the shield is hold by Roland (way in front of the body), makes it possible to strike it, without exposing yourself too much. No matter if my strike has less reach them his. I don't have to have much reach. The angled shield doesn't pose a significant difficulty since a angled strike is very well possible. If I hit the flat of the shield I both do much do more damage to it and the chance of my weapon biting into it is much less. I don't say its the perfect tactic. I just say its possible. In fact in the sagas, the breaking of shields is definitely heard of. From my knowledge most weapon finds are grave finds, but I'm no expert. But see what a quick google search found: denkmalpflege.niedersachsen.de/startseite/themen-projekte/fund_des_monats/das-ulfberht-schwert-aus-groenwieden-ldkr-hameln-pyrmont-162049.html Either corrosion or battlefield damage. But definitely damage. You be the judge. The point is, we find damaged swords.

You are welcome to hit my shield anytime.

​@@swordandshield On the flat? With an axe? Sure I'll do that. Go a bit thinner and it will shatter just from staring at it to hard^^ I fought with shields too and I know with swords it seems really easy to parry a blow. But try out something heftier and you will see. Not to mention something really big like a dane axe!

Do you happen to break the opponent's nose in a tennis match ? Does the tree even fight back ? You have to use technics and good tools to defeat a tree, while being careful not hitting yourself, while all he has to do is fall on you

Am I?

No not really. It's a quote from the Princess Bride, in which case you can take it as a flippant swordism. But, there is also a video from Guy Windsor unpacking the scene in question, where he points out that the Bonetti in question is the Bonetti Rocco, discussed in "A Briefe Note of Three Italian Teachers of Offence" in Silver's Paradoxes of Defense. Bonetti was beaten by an Englishman "not standing much upon his skill" in sword and buckler vs. rapier as well as later by a boatman in a fight oar vs. rapier. The polemic is of course, in part, that rapiers are terrible and quarterstaff, or oar, is much better (also backsword). But also, there is the argument that "whatsoever they teach, is both true & false; true in their demonstrations, according with their force & time in gentle play, & in their actions according with the force & time in rough play or fight, false. No fight perfect that is not done in force & true time." Silver was a grumpy man, and people on the internet may well be having unfounded anime dreams of power, but I felt there was a bit of strawman in the video, and it needn't be the case. In general, I agree that that true skill means being able to beat a raging bull, and also that true skill exists, I'm not saying you can't defeat a raging bull, I just didn't like some of the arguments, like; it's not rough play if you are pulling your blows so no one loses an eye; running forwards till you trip is not the only rough play; descriptions of how the bind/wrestling work aren't the whole actual or potential tactical framework of hema; historical people also had disagreements on these points and historical fencing masters could also be maladapted to their own realities etc. Since I'm an tech employee with a philosophy background growing too old for my victories I took the oppurtunity to cryptically worry about the argument not the conclusion... but you caught me out now. Que sera.

You call strawman and use it yourself. Nice job. NOBODY is saying physical aspects don't matter at all. We are saying physical aspects without skill vs somebody with skill is of little worth.

@@ColdNapalm42 I don't think I particularly mis-characterised the position argued in the video, for whatever that might be worth. As for: " NOBODY is saying physical aspects don't matter at all. We are saying physical aspects without skill vs somebody with skill is of little worth." in the context of the discussion in the video both are pretty much saying what I implicitly characterised the argument in the video as saying. I suspect that if you handed an axe to a teenage Mike Tyson (let's take that as an extreme example of strength speed aggression and toughness without skill, at that age), a man of ordinary attributes would need at least the skills of Roland Warzecha to have much chance of surviving the encounter, and personally I'd say the odds would be fairly even at best, even then. Far from the physical aspects without skill being "of little worth", imo skill probably just gives you a fighting chance against superior physical attributes. It doesn't make you the winner automatically because those attributes are rendered irrelevant ("of little worth"). Who's "we" by the way?

@@ColdNapalm42 Here's a question to try to establish where you stand on this: is there a level of weapon or combat skill that can be achieved by a human of ordinary natural attributes that will make him all but immune to attacks from anyone without skill, no matter how strong etc (within the human range). I think that idea is fairly common in oriental martial arts traditions, and it seems to be the position you are adopting above when you write that physical attributes without skill are "of little worth" against someone with skill. Personally, I don't buy it. I think combat is much more random than that, and skill is less effective than that in countering big disadvantages in natural attributes. But obviously I do accept that skill does counter those disadvantages to some extent. If you insist on the distinction between your dismissive "of little worth" and "of no worth", then we are basically in agreement about the situation, but disagreeing about the degree. It's difficult though to discuss degree with any precision or confidence here. Warzecha presumably believes (based on the video) that he could reasonably safely defeat a stronger, quicker etc man who is without skill, and doubtless he's correct up to some degree. To what degree, ie how much stronger, quicker etc? One man in ten? One in a thousand? That becomes the heart of the discussion, and it's probably fairly futile and not capable of any real conclusion except (probably) agreeing to disagree, especially because the difference between practice fighting and fighting to the death seems likely to be pretty profound, on several counts.

@@markmarksson6361 immune...no. Near certain...yes. I actually see this all the time from young guys at our HEMA club. It's a little harder to see in this video example with shields...but with something like longswords...yeah much easier. For example, I was training a very athletic 17 year old last month. Much stronger, faster and even taller than myself using a longer sword. So basically all the advantages physically available. I am nowhere near the skill of Roland. The guy being a strapping lad and new and eager was of course very aggressive. Of the 50 bouts or so last month he won 3 of the fights. Also, if you think a young Mike Tyson had no combat skills...umm...yeah...no. You don't become a world champion with no skill. Yes, he may not know the finer points of using a weapon...but timing and measure...yeah he's got that. Skill and physical advantages generally means bad news for you. Even a little skill goes a long way to leverage those physical traits. World champion levels of skill with physicality...yeah that is one tall order to beat.

@@ColdNapalm42 OK so we can see the scope of our disagreement, then. I doubt we'll be able to do much more than make our points and agree to disagree. I think skill is much more effective at negating strength etc in a hema or martial arts training context than in a "real fight" situation, because force and aggression are very much downplayed in their effectiveness in the former, and as I noted above, I don't give all that much credence to martial arts/fencing experts' own self-serving opinions as to how mighty their own arts are (not aiming this at you, here, rather at all the fencing masters and martial arts masters of the past who made or condoned dramatic boasts about their capabilities). As far as I'm aware Tyson had no trained weapon skills at all. No skill doesn't mean complete physical incompetence. Basic playground/street-fighting experience is pretty much a given for any big, strong aggressive guy who's going to pick a fight, and all the more so in past eras. Tyson started boxing training in high school, iirc, and so would have had some boxing skills (he was a professional at 18 and a world champion at 20, though his physical attributes surely played as big a part as his boxing skill in that - both were necessary), but those wouldn't count for all that much in an axe and shield fight, I don't think. At any rate, it wouldn't be his boxing training that would be the big problem for his opponent, but rather his strength speed aggression and toughness. But if the boxing skills really concern you, just make it "someone who's as big, strong, quick, aggressive and tough as Tyson was, but without any boxing training".

Viable martial skills can be developed independant of the manuscripts. Specific techniques might elude them, but some things will be fundamentally true in fighting, and these can be discovered through experience and taught between individuals even at the lowest rungs of society.

@@CrazyRandomLord if the basis of our art is wrestling, I think most peasants were probably at least passing familiar.

if you want to learn how to fight go and ask someone who survived a war This is meantioned in one of the sagas and had been true arround the world where war had been present in peoples realety...

@mikajlod25 For most of human military history the men who fought were relatively wealthy and could afford training and equipment as they weren’t equipped or trained by the polity they were fighting for. The only premodern polity that equipped and trained their soldiers was the Roman Republic/Empire. The misconception that armies of the premodern world were filled with peasants and low status people is from modern (1700 to now) armies that had firearms as primary weapons so they could recruit, equip, and train them in a very short time which is what allowed modern armies to become so large. So in short the people fighting with a sword and shield would’ve definitely been trained to use them.

You sound like a snobby twat. And who’s to say that the martial art you practice is even correct? A member of an Anglo Saxon Fyrd would probably gut you in two seconds flat.

There is an essential difference in FMA blade arts compared to historical European ones. The fact that the machete is short-bladed and does not have a crossguard means that point-focused fencing was never developed in this context, neither do blade binds make sense with so short a blade. Point focused swordsmanship uses the maximum reach of the weapon, and the eskrimador gets thrust in the face long before he even gets into the measure he needs for his cutting blows with his beautiful machete. And, yes, I have tried this out with my former eskrima instructor.

Roland Warzecha oh I agree, I’m not a fencer, nor a European weapons expert, I’m a hobby bladesmith and 30 year martial arts experience. Plus I’m no so much talking about machete’s as such but the more purpose built weapons like the gayang (has a cross guard as it’s not a garden tool). Or even the Japanese wakizashi, short sword with a cross guard all be it much smaller than European larger swords. I may be I little different to most in the regard that my objective if I were in the days of old is kill as many as possible as fast as possible and have no regard for my own life when put into those context. Sorry for any miss understanding. Good video though. We both can agree to disagree if that’s possible, no malice from my end.

Roland Warzecha it was also known for samurai to carry a wakizashi in a Katana scabbard as you can draw a shorter sword faster than a long sword thus killing your opponent before he could strike.

Oh, welcome back! Yeah, we have so much to catch you up on. A lot's changed since you left reality. See, there was this war...

Refer to 7:34 where he discusses ideal shield use; heavy shields are irrelevant for skilled duelists.

Alarec Scarbrow I mean those shields look like they can be manipulated very easily.

@@ReasonAboveEverything That's how viking fighting is about

Ulfheodin no wonder they switched to concave shields.

I don't think to be strong means to be stupid - nobody would be willing to risk to get hit with a sharp sword. so even without elaborate martial skill the natural instinct is to avoid let sharp objekts comming towards the own body. Suicidal fencing is in my opinion more a thing of modern reconstruction with protective gear and the knowledge of not beeing in real risk of loosing life... ps: the experiment could have better done with an untraind bodybuilder against a skilled fencer instead of someone who is in knowledge of martial principals but I would doubt that the outcome would be different...

Well, as it says in the video, you are welcome to prove your point sword in hand.

What are you talking about, Batman boy?

@@mousermind A conversation we had a few weeks back, Robin child.

@@MontChevalier care to elaborate and give proof?

@@elgostine And how would I do that? Use your head, moron.